Seaport Transportation

Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)

Can we rename this thread Seaport Transit?

http://www.universalhub.com/2013/southie-eastie-get-ferry-connection-city-state

City and state officials today announced a series of traffic-improvement steps to keep the burgeoning Innovation District from choking on its own success, ranging from the mundane - better lane markers on the Moakley Bridge - to a new ferry service between East Boston and South Boston, scheduled to start sometime next year.

The city will use a $1.3 million federal grant to help pay for two ferries to shuttle commuters between the two waterfront communities; East Boston had long been promised ferry service.

"The MBTA will assess and improve service in the Innovation District on key commuter bus lines such as the #4 and #7 within the next year," the city says. Absent were any announcements of improvements to Silver Line service.

Other plans include:

"Time to Destination" electronic signs will be installed in the area in November;
" Restriping the road surface on the Moakley Bridge, a major route in and out of the district, to guide motorists to travel lanes to I-93 and other destinations, preventing tie-ups caused by confusion;"
A detailed traffic study of 63 intersections in the district and along the Greenway
"Smart" parking meters that will be able to tell a smartphone app where the available parking in the area is;
Creation and enforcement of "Don't block the box" boxes at Seaport Boulevard and Sleeper Street and Atlantic Avenue and Summer Street;
Look at opening the haul road and the Ted Williams HOV lane to all traffic while the Callahan Tunnel is shut for repairs;
More Hubway stations in the district next spring.
 
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)

That DMU plan disappeared without a peep huh?
 
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)

The DMU plan was idiotic anyway.

Almost as idiotic as "opening" the HOV lane. Why don't our officials understand the point of HOV lanes?
 
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)

^ Oh it was supremely idiotic. I just enjoy how it's gone seemingly without a peep. My guess is that Amtrak had some strong words with our state officials.
 
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)

BussesAin'tTrains said:
That DMU plan disappeared without a peep huh?
Click to expand...

DMU's are always the great white hope until you actually sit down and start plotting out a real purchase. It's only then when you have to come face-to-face with the limitations of the current market for those vehicles. That's not an anti-DMU stance. DMU's should still be the goal. For Fairmount especially. But there's only so much you can do right this second with such a moribund purchase market for FRA-compliants. That's reality.


As for Track 61...well, this is what happens when you jump the gun and go euphoric without thinking out the logistics of the implementation. I'm sure Amtrak has given its two cents now and they're staring down the reality of what kind of schedule is feasible. It's highly unlikely this is looking like the rosy cure-all it was last month. And that was completely predictable. I understand the motivation for it...the BCEC was fed up with the non-response from the city and state about unfulfilled transit promises to the Seaport and went rogue to send a message. If they're smart, they should be planning their pivot as the euphoria gives way to operational reality. Lighting a fire under the Mayoral candidates to do something, planning out other acceptable band-aid options, and making no bones about the fact that they've got to come up with a permanent solution for the Silver Line. This is the reckoning 10 years later for doing the cut-and-run on Phase III, and the start of the city's 20-30 year reckoning for doing the cut-and-run on all the radial circulation projects the T needs to keep the urban core from choking on itself. This conversation can't be dodged any longer.
 
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)

This conversation can't be dodged any longer.
Click to expand...

Five dollars nobody will touch this problem for 20 years.
 
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)

People keep saying that. But look how much we've abused our infrastructure, and still get by. The T is held together by baling wire, hair nets and duct tape.
 
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)

Matthew said:
People keep saying that. But look how much we've abused our infrastructure, and still get by. The T is held together by baling wire, hair nets and duct tape.
Click to expand...

But the population is still growing, and developers are building car-free/fewer parking space housing. Ridership on the T is going to keep increasing. The patches aren't going to work indefinitely. Eventually decades old equipment will just stop working. It already happens and people bitch and moan and get to work late. It will only get worse, and worse, and worse.
 
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)

BussesAin'tTrains said:
But the population is still growing, and developers are building car-free/fewer parking space housing. Ridership on the T is going to keep increasing. The patches aren't going to work indefinitely. Eventually decades old equipment will just stop working. It already happens and people bitch and moan and get to work late. It will only get worse, and worse, and worse.
Click to expand...
If you want to avoid things grinding to a halt, you also want to avoid system expansions that aren't strictly needed, and spend your money on State of Good Repair projects, not new endpoints, not new routes, though, perhaps new track-miles (in the form of double-tracking).

The way to keep the old things working is to keep the old things working, not cute tricks on Track 61.

Almost everywhere we look, growth would be better accommodated by denser use of what we have (bilevels, double-tracking, better signals, DMUs on *existing* CR, and transit oriented growth) rather than new, lightly utilized showpieces for tourists.
 
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)

Car-free housing puts less strain on the infrastructure. Automobile infrastructure/capacity is the most expensive/inefficient to supply.

I'm not saying that we don't need to invest. We do. And the T needs work. But for most people, talking about "future gridlock" means "lets build more roads and parking lots" even though we know that doesn't work. But just look at what they rolled out for the Seaport.
 
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)

Arlington said:
If you want to avoid things grinding to a halt, you also want to avoid system expansions that aren't strictly needed, and spend your money on State of Good Repair projects, not new endpoints, not new routes, though, perhaps new track-miles (in the form of double-tracking).

The way to keep the old things working is to keep the old things working, not cute tricks on Track 61.

Almost everywhere we look, growth would be better accommodated by denser use of what we have (bilevels, double-tracking, better signals, DMUs on *existing* CR, and transit oriented growth) rather than new, lightly utilized showpieces for tourists.
Click to expand...

Are you contesting something I said, or just making an additional point? I don't disagree with you. The biggest priority right now is to update signals system wide, prioritize the GL street crossings, refurbish/update the fleet of the Green, Red and Orange Lines. That needs to be done yesterday.

But don't minimize expansion as "lightly utilized showpieces for tourists" though... That characterization is strange to me. What expansion proposal qualifies as that? The Heritage Greenway Trolley is the only thing I can think of that is remotely "for tourists." Red-Blue is needed to ease the transfer between Red...and Blue... Take some pressure off of Park Street/DTX and Govt Center/State. What other proposals? Conversion of the SL to Green? That's not "for tourists" either. It would be VERY HEAVILY utilized by residents and commuters. N-S Link? Necessary down the road for scheduling Amtrak/CR. Urban Ring in some form of rail? Streamlines circumferential travel and takes pressure off the downtown transfers.

Nothing "lightly utilized showpieces for tourists"
 
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)

Matthew said:
Car-free housing puts less strain on the infrastructure. Automobile infrastructure/capacity is the most expensive/inefficient to supply.

I'm not saying that we don't need to invest. We do. And the T needs work. But for most people, talking about "future gridlock" means "lets build more roads and parking lots" even though we know that doesn't work. But just look at what they rolled out for the Seaport.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about road infrastructure. I agree with you almost all of the time on road and parking infrastructure. I'm talking about public transit. Taking cars off the road is great for busses, until they get overcrowded and can't keep a schedule, and then the T doesn't add capacity because there's no money for more busses. Sucks to be the guy who has to take the bus then.

Taking cars off the road doesn't help the rails. Ideally we'd be getting people out of cars and they'd seamlessly switch to the T. Thousands of people do this on their own anyway. But keep adding more and more people into the system without proper investment and upkeep? It will just get more crowded and less reliable. Assuming that we can just continue to muddle along like we've been muddling along for years is fallacious. Equipment and infrastructure doesn't work in a vacuum. It will continue to wear out and break down, and the system will become more and more unreliable. There's already a culture of distain for the T from the people who use it. You don't want it getting even worse.

Obviously we should be continuing to encourage car-free living as an equal option to being a driver, but we can't maintain that policy if we're not going to invest similarly in maintaining and improving public transit to pick up the slack.
 
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)

I think the showpiece for tourists is the Track 61 DMU - the subject of this thread.
 
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)

BussesAin'tTrains said:
Are you contesting something I said, or just making an additional point? I don't disagree with you. The biggest priority right now is to update signals system wide, prioritize the GL street crossings, refurbish/update the fleet of the Green, Red and Orange Lines. That needs to be done yesterday.

But don't minimize expansion as "lightly utilized showpieces for tourists" though... That characterization is strange to me. What expansion proposal qualifies as that?
Click to expand...

Well, I'm a little suspicious of proposals to "take pressure off" facility X by building facility Y, like the Red-Blue connector.

The reality is that if you really want to work in the "Red", you'll most appreciate just a faster, more reliable Red ride no matter where in the universe you're coming from. Next, let's work on the connecting points we have: expand Alewife access, get 3-car green line, and closer headways on the Silver Line.

So even a Red-Blue commute is "new" to me and is therefore more speculative than just straight-up improving the lines we have along the routes they have. But if I still *really* need to get Chelsea/Easty/Lynn folks to the red line, I'd rather push the Silver Line out into their streets than dig a tunnel on Beacon HIll.

If you live up in Easty/Lynn, I've got the Silver Line and the GLX that do you all kinds of good. Do I really need a Blue-Red connector?
 
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)

fattony said:
I think the showpiece for tourists is the Track 61 DMU - the subject of this thread.
Click to expand...

Which was pitched as a commuter release-valve, not a tourist trap. It was a foolish plan, but not because of its proposed audience.
 
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)

Arlington said:
Well, I'm a little suspicious of proposals to "take pressure off" facility X by building facility Y, like the Red-Blue connector.
Click to expand...

Okay. All I'll say is that it's been studied, and is also legally mandated...

The reality is that if you really want to work in the "Red", you'll most appreciate just a faster, more reliable Red ride no matter where in the universe you're coming from. Next, let's work on the connecting points we have: expand Alewife access, get 3-car green line, and closer headways on the Silver Line.
Click to expand...

All worthwhile to be sure.

So even a Red-Blue commute is "new" to me and is therefore more speculative than just straight-up improving the lines we have along the routes they have. But if I still *really* need to get Chelsea/Easty/Lynn folks to the red line, I'd rather push the Silver Line out into their streets than dig a tunnel on Beacon HIll.
Click to expand...

It's one of the easiest digs in all of downtown Boston, and a short one at that. I guess I just think that people should be able to access Cambridge or Dorchester from Eastie or Revere just as easily as someone from JP or Malden can.

If you live up in Easty/Lynn, I've got the Silver Line and the GLX that do you all kinds of good. Do I really need a Blue-Red connector?
Click to expand...

What's the GLX doing for Eastie and Lynn? A BLX would be nice for Lynn...
 
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)

Arlington said:
So even a Red-Blue commute is "new" to me and is therefore more speculative than just straight-up improving the lines we have along the routes they have. But if I still *really* need to get Chelsea/Easty/Lynn folks to the red line, I'd rather push the Silver Line out into their streets than dig a tunnel on Beacon HIll.
Click to expand...

Transportation is not just about commutes though. That is 1960's thinking. Downtown is for work. Inner and outer suburbs (this includes "the neighborhoods") are for sleep. Transportation is to get people between theses completely separate districts.

I thought the point of mixed-use districts and TOD was to get people moving in all directions at all times of day on all modes of transportation. I'm not delusional that rush hour is ever going away, but if you plan your infrastructure and your urban environment in a 1960's urban renewal mindset, guess what you are going to get?

Red-Blue is about much more than getting someone from Eastie to a job in Kendall Square at 8:30am. It is about bringing Maverick Square closer (temporally and psychologically) to Harvard Square. It integrates the city by making a more complete and extensive network. It also adds redundancy which is a key feature of a good network (of any kind, not just transportation). That interconnection stimulates economic activity INSIDE the city and it mitigates the risk of loss associated with system failures and shutdowns.
 
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)

BussesAin'tTrains said:
What's the GLX doing for Eastie and Lynn? A BLX would be nice for Lynn...
Click to expand...
When the issue is "Access to Cambridge", the GLX gets everyone (from all points) the following:

1) Shorter headways to Lechmere (often halved with the D not turning at NS), and access to stuff that we think of today as "Kendall"

2) Access to Union Sq (and from it the 86 to porter, the 87 to Harvard and the 91 to Central....those Red places)

Now, you say, the 86, 87, and 91 are bad. I say reduce their headways and improve their connectability

A lot of what makes bus connections today unattractive isn't connecting points, but rather, headways that are too far apart and bus stops that are too close together.

My goal would to have fewer lines that operated more reliably, faster, and at shorter headways, such that they'd be worth walking to and worth connecting via.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top